Wednesday, August 29, 2012

In
the annals of cinema, I’m not sure there is a greater sustained piece of outlandish, irreverent cinema than Vera Chytilova’s towering masterwork, Daisies. The fact that it also contains
some fascinating political and feminist overtones is the icing on the cake for
me. As the key pillar in the Czech New-Wave movement, this film stands as an important statement
from a time and a place and I consider it essential viewing. Chytilova’s film
was in fact banned in her own country, and she was eventually blacklisted and
unable to make films there for several years.
It’s a wonder that the film got made at all. I remember seeing this in a
rather rough print about 8 years ago during an Eastern New-Wave retrospective I
was attending. Seeing it again in the new Criterion Eclipse series is rather a
revelation. I really liked it before. I LOVE it now. It is perhaps a disservice
that Criterion did not issue the film as a stand-alone or even a Blu-ray
version, but nonetheless, the film looks spectacular in this new print.

Chytilova’s
film follows the exploits of two teenage girls----Marie and Marie. Or Marie I (Jitka Cerhova) and Marie II (Ivana Karbanova). Their loose dialogue at the beginning of the film refers to their
dissatisfaction that the world is “spoiled”. They decide right then and there
that they too should be spoiled as well. They in turn, run rough-shod through a
series of vignettes, casting aside any sort of conservatism and destroying any
sense of moral compass or passivity or inhibition. They become free-form
individuals doing whatever their basest desires lead them to. They take advantage
of older men, drink beer from straws, make public displays of misbehavior,
devour massive amounts of food and literally destroy themselves. Chytilova's script is not of real-world scenarios. These girls exist within a bubble....their own world, without consequences. That is until the end, when even the film itself seems to become fed up with their shenanigans, and turns on them in a fit of retrograde frustration, punishing them for their naughtiness and condemning them with a flourish of crashes, explosions, machine gun clatter and of course.....cheekiness.

If
ever a free-form narrative called for inventive filmmaking, it’s this one.
Chytilova’s imagination is on overdrive here as she bombards us with style. She
incorporates black and white, color, sepia, monotones (in green, blue, red),
fast motion, collage, jump-cuts, text narration. This is not to mention the
fantastically inspired soundtrack, incorporating everything from classical
music, to machine gun fire, to completely un-related aural sounds, like the
typewriter sounds played over one scene.
All of these effects are not gratuitous or overkill, but they are
essential toward building the overall impression and purpose of the
film. There is a manic energy on display here and Chytilova makes you feel the
sense of indulgence that the Maries are after. One cannot separate the plot
from the technique here. They build upon one another and make each greater as a
result. Somehow Chytilova keeps this film from being completely obnoxious. In fact it's quite the opposite: insanely delightful.

If
one is to try and dissect what Chytilova is trying to say, I think there are
perhaps a few approaches. In one sense, it is a subversion of “good girl”
behavior. These women are completely in control and they do as they please.
They choose their mates and dump them when they want, they eat and drink to
their heart’s content. Their rather cardboard existence is reflective of their rebellion. If they are little more
than objects (as the world treats them as women) then the film can be read as a subversive rebellion from this image. "If one is going to treat me this way, then this is how I will behave and this is what you will get." Additionally, from a political standpoint, Chytilova is thwarting
everything that her country was trying to control. So to portray basic gluttony
and consumption would obviously have been considered a slap in the face to a
regime built upon socialist dogma. Any way you slice it, there is meat on the
bones to this film. Even though on the surface it appears to be just a piece of insanity, there are actually few films that display this
sort of high-octane energy, inventiveness, and subversion. This one is very
near the tops in all of those regards, and it's one of the very best films of the 1960's.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Rebel Without a Cause is probably Nicholas
Ray’s most iconic work and if not his best, still packs an emotional wallop and
is also a rather dense and thematic work. It also contains James Dean’s
performance that made him into a legend. Although he would display greater
range and acting ability in the film that followed, Giant (1956), his work here is fascinating. One can view
this film in different ways then. Is it the James Dean show? Or it is a
Nicholas Ray film? When I was about 16 years old, this was my favorite film. I
didn’t know Nicholas Ray from Adam but was rather obsessed with Dean. Everything this film spoke to was a sort
of calling card for me in high school. I probably watched it twice a year for a
while there. It had been 10 years or so since I’ve seen it and since then I’ve
come to understand Nicholas Ray and his artistry and now I see the film more as
an interesting combination of popular appeal and subversive filmmaking.

Rebel stars James Dean as
Jim Stark, a high school student who is found lying drunk on the pavement at the
beginning of the film. He’s brought into the police station where we begin to
understand he is a “troubled youth.” He routinely gets into trouble, has a hard
time making friends, hates the way his mother and grandmother pick on his
rather meek father. In the police station we also meet Judy (Natalie Wood) who
was on the streets because her father roughed her up earlier in the evening.
Additionally we meet Plato (Sal Mineo) who drowned some puppies earlier in the
day and whose parents are divorced and also absent. All three attend Dawson
High. Most of the film takes place in a single day, as James attends his first
day at his new school, meets Judy (who is at first standoffish towards him) and
Plato (who idolizes him as a father figure among other things), gets in a fight
with a bully, is challenged to a “chickie-run”,
fights with his parents, falls deeply in love and witnesses the deaths of two
friends.

Ray’s
film contains some brilliant domestic elements and the entire work is rife
with symbolism, fantastic framing and camerawork. One of the key elements on
display are the poor parent/child relationships. Jim’s father is a huge
disappointment to him. Played by Jim Bacchus, Mr. Stark is a timid, bumbling man,
unable to provide his son with any real direction or advice. Jim tries at one
point to get a straight answer from his dad, but instead his dad wants to pull
out paper and pencil and start righting out pros and cons. Jim’s mother is
critical and perfectionist and henpecks Mr. Stark constantly. Jim refers to his family
members as a “zoo”. Plato’s parents are divorced and his mother has left the
house, so he lives with the housekeeper and is lonely, desperately
seeking a father figure and friends. Judy’s relationship with her father, in my opinion is
rather abusive. We meet her at the police station, and in a brilliant piece of
acting by Natalie Wood, we find out her father has called her a tramp and tried
to rub off her lipstick. She is in tears as she explains she thought he would
“rub off my lips.” Later in the film when she is seeking fatherly love he slaps
her across the face. Her mother’s pathetically blank expression during this
scene is indicative of Judy’s broken relationship with her mother as well. It is clear
her mother does not understand Judy’s needs. One of the overarching themes is
that the flaws of the parents have clearly affected the children and in fact
the film almost out and out blames the parents for the behavior of the
children.

In
one of the film's most effective motifs, the interplay between James, Judy, and
Plato make up a surrogate family. Plato idolizes Jim as a father, talking
about going hunting and fishing with him. In the scene at the BigMansion,
Jim and Judy make believe they are looking at the house as potential buyers
and talking of children. Judy even hums a lullaby to Plato and he dozes off to
sleep in this scene. The three of them together form a cathartic family….one in
which they can be themselves and not be judged. Later in the film, Jim tries
to rationalize and compromise with Plato as a father does with his own son. None of this feels forced at all, but becomes an essential component of the
story. They are all friends, but individually form certain components of this surrogate family. Three uniquely framed scenes highlight the growing
relationship of the three (shown below). We first see the three of them framed in the police
station, but they are not together. In fact Judy is behind glass and isolated.
Next we see the three of them at the top of the cliff following the
chickie-run….Jim reaching out his hand to Judy with Plato framed right
between them. Finally the fully formed family unit is framed together in loving
embrace….Judy caressing Jim with Plato being comforted by the presence and
glow of familial love. Ernest Haller’s Cinemascope framing is magnificent
during these and many other moments. There are some fascinating camera tilts
during the scene in the Stark home as James argues with his parents, as well as
another camera tilt during the climactic scene of the film when Plato runs out
of the observatory. These unsettling camera movements are elements of the
underlying fracturing of “perfect domesticity”.

Additionally the use of
the color red (the credit titles, Judy’s jacket and lipstick, Jim's jacket,
Plato’s sock) is effective within the framing as highlights of emotional pain,
confusion, and aggression. Judy’s bright red jacket and lips beacon as sexually
suggestive in the opening scene. By the end of the film, she is in a more comfortable pink
dress as she has become the ideal, sensitive maternal figure. Jim’s red
jacket, a possession and symbol of his rebellion earlier, is used as a token of grief
when laid upon his dead friend at the end. Plato (Mineo - himself a homosexual), in
perhaps a not-so-subtle way, is seemingly confused as towards his feelings for
Jim….is he a father figure or perhaps a potential lover? This confusion is
paralleled in his wearing one red sock and one blue sock. It is to Mineo’s
credit that this element of the film is terrifically sincere and unforced. We
should all consider ourselves lucky that Nicholas Ray changed in mid-filming
from black and white traditional stock to full color and Cinemascope. It is not
an understatement to say that Ray was the greatest Cinemascope director. He
used wide framing perhaps better than anyone ever has.

Dean’s
performance is full of affectation and ticks, but he is very good in subtle
moments as well, like when he kisses Judy on the forehead as they’re sitting
talking under the tree. Sal Mineo is wonderfully brooding and believable as a
kid that no one seems to like. Natalie Wood gives one of the best performances
of her career as Judy, and that first scene in the police station is a
knockout. True there are awkward or even dated elements to this film, but it retains an underlying inspired sincerity. Ray found a way to identify with
these youths rather than objectify them and that’s what keeps it grounded in
their reality. My favorite scene in the film is the Mansion scene where the
three leads romp and play and enjoy their friendship without judgement from the
outside world. Yes it’s just a respite from the violence that will follow in a
few hours, but it’s a beautiful moment of such tenderness that it feels like a
mini-lifetime.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Terence
Davies’ first non-documentary work since House of Mirth (2000) is a spare and
emotionally fragile work that contains magnificent pacing, inspired visuals,
and a devastating performance from Rachel Weisz who is in nearly every scene in
the film and commands your attention the entire way. It’s one of the best films
of 2011 (or 2012 depending on release dates and locations). Davies here works
within a framework of the classic melodramas and in a certain sense, I was
reminded of Lean's Brief Encounter (1945) except that this story somewhat picks up
where Brief Encounter leaves off. Here, the female protagonist pursues and
consummates the affair and is left to deal with the consequences. This is a
film that may bore or exasperate some, but for fans of love stories or
melodramas, it doesn’t get better than this.

The
DeepBlueSea
is based on the Terence Rattigan play from 1952 of the same name. It is the
story of Hester Collyer (Weisz), wife of a Judge named William (Simon Russell
Beale). They live a rather privileged existence, yet have no children. We pick
up the story after Hester has been involved in an affair with an RAF pilot
named Freddie (Tom Hiddleston), and in fact, the story basically occurs in one
day----the day Hester has decided to commit suicide. Freddie had forgotten her
birthday and had gone away for the weekend and in a state of despondency,
Hester attempted to kill herself. She is saved by her neighbors, but spends the
rest of the day remembering moments from her past. This is told in a mosaic
flashback form. We see moments with her husband, we see moments with Freddie.
We slowly begin to put things together. Later that day, Freddie comes home to
find her in a state of disengagement and finds her suicide note. The rest of
the film involves Hester attempting to reconcile her feelings and her
relationships.

What
I find so thoroughly engaging about this film, is its mature and its deeply
introspective approach to the subject matter. As the audience we are trusted to
find our way through Hester’s feelings. Yes it is obvious that she
is distraught and depressed. But why? As the film unfolds, it is clear that
this is a work of great character examination. It appears that Hester married
for safety and comfort, but when she met Freddie, she found sexual and
emotional exhilaration. When she left her husband for her lover, she found
herself torn between guilt and passion…between shame and love. This produced in
her a deep rooted sense of self-loathing and self-hatred, so that she remained
balanced on the precipice of an emotional abyss. She gets along, but if there
is any negative emotional setbacks in her relationship, she takes it extremely
hard. What is so fascinating is that Hester does not avoid emotional drama.
She is almost drawn to it as a way of feeling SOMETHING. When Freddie picks up
her suicide note, she does not try to tear it away from him. She wants him to
read it. She wants him to know her pain and wants to be put in that emotional
state of turmoil and bring him into it. She also turns away her husband even
though he seems to still care for her and is willing to take her back to
comfort and safety. She denies him and instead prefers to stay in her perpetual
state of melancholy, depression, and suicidal fantasies. Like I said though,
this film is deeply introspective, and outside of a few outbursts, is a rather
quiet, but penetrating work.

Camerawork
by Florian Hoffmeister allows a hazy glow to overtake the viewer. The film is
filtered so that nothing is quite in extreme focus and we are awash in
cigarette smoke and dark rooms and shadows. Davies lets us wallow in the mise-en-scene and
the pace is very slow and deliberate, which allows a sense of importance
to set in even though the film is only 98 minutes. Punctuating the film with feeling is a violin concerto piece by Samuel Barber, which gives the film
a sense of beautiful desperation. It’s a wonderful piece of music. Foremost, though, is
the performance by Rachel Weisz. She makes us believe that this woman is
willing to be absolutely miserable, perhaps even crave her turmoil, all for the
sake of love. Yes she’s in love…..and it’s killing her. Weisz is tremendous in
moments of emotional outpouring, and also in moments of pensive reservation.
There is an extended scene where she stands at her window, smoking a cigarette.
You can feel her desperate need to be lost in her own mind. Weisz does not turn
this into a pity party. We don’t feel sorry for her but instead regard her with
fascination. How far will this woman go to be continually humiliated and
destroyed? This film intensely examines the depth of her emotional state. It is a fantastic work.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

If
this isn’t one of the greatest comedies ever made I would be hardpressed to
find a reason why it wouldn’t be considered as such. Jean Renoir’s film is
chock full of delightful comedy and social commentary that is quintessentially
French and also rather influential to other comedies that followed in the decades
after. One could probably name several comedies where most of the action
revolves around a character who is essentially a fish out of water that becomes
rather annoying to others around him/her. Everything from What About Bob? (1991), to
National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989), to buddy comedies like Planes, Trains,
and Automobiles (1987). There are more for sure. Here though, there is a beautiful
assimilation between flat-out comedy and social commentary and they build upon
each other nicely. I am usually not the biggest Jean Renoir fan, but this is one of my favorite films by him.

Boudu
(Michel Simon) is a homeless man. We find him at the beginning of the film in a
park with his dog, which he promptly loses. This dog was seemingly his only
comfort in life. We also meet a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. Lestingois, and
their maid Anne-Marie (also Mr. Lestingois’s mistress). One day, Mr. Lestingois
spots a homeless man (Boudu) jumping into the Seine
to kill himself. Lestingois rushes from his home and saves him from the river,
bringing him back to his house. He not only saves Boudu’s life, but invites him
to stay with them. He gives him food, clothes and a couch to sleep on. Boudu is
rather carefree about the whole deal…being clumsy and making messes, eating
sloppily, flirting with the maid, having sex with the Mrs., and generally
wreaking all kinds of havoc on the bourgeois household. It’s a riotous
combination of slapstick and class commentary.

Michel
Simon gives a towering performance as Boudu, one of the great cinematic
characters of the 1930’s. His sloppy speech, mindless food chewing, and
altogether uncouth qualities are quite a behold to watch. One of my
favorite sequences is when Mr.
Lestingois tells him to go out to a barber to get his beard cut….but he must
shine his shoes first. So Boudu begins to shine his shoes, and manages to flood
the kitchen with water, leaving polish everywhere from the kitchen to the
bedroom with not a care in the world (I include this clip below from YouTube). Boudu is a rather boorish character but
is not really mean spirited. He's just completely unfiltered. Thus, he’s funny in a truly genuine, instinctive kind of way. He
simply says what he thinks and does what he wants. Michel Simon also works from a cinematic language and framework that began with the silent clowns (Chaplin, Keaton), which gives his performance a wonderful visual flair, but he makes it his own, adding more raw body movements and expressions than we are used to seeing from this era, rather than the graceful balletic movements of Keaton and Chaplin.

Of
course, the attack on the bourgeoisie is apparent here and Renoir does not shy
away from the satirical angle. Boudu asks a cop for help in looking for his dog
and isn’t given the time of day. When a beautiful (rich) woman
approaches the cop for the same reason, he brings in several other cops for
help. As Boudu opens a door for a man with a fancy car in the park hoping to
get some change, the man has nothing in his pockets to give to Boudu, so Boudu
hands him 5 Francs. Furthermore, all anyone can talk about when Boudu is saved
from drowning is how Lestingois is going to get recognized for such a feat.
Throughout the film, there is a subversion of the bourgeois life. Perhaps the
greatest moment is at the end of the film when Boudu trades his new expensive
clothing and changes clothes with a scarecrow at the edge of a field. He’s
clearly fed up with his newfound life and would rather go back to being poor. Jean Renoir
commands the whole film masterfully from start to finish and with Michel Simon’s towering
performance, this is a must-see comedy…. with bite to it.